Oklahoma Republicans pass bill to protect drivers who hit protesters
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Carmen FormanOklahoman
In a rare, early-morning vote, Republican lawmakers in the Oklahoma House approved legislation to grant immunity to drivers who hit protesters.
On a party-line vote Wednesday, the House passed a bill that grants civil and criminal immunity for drivers who unintentionally injure or kill protesters while "fleeing from a riot."
House Bill 1674 from Rep. Kevin West, R-Moore, is just one of a handful of GOP-sponsored bills in the Oklahoma Legislature this year designed to crack down on protests.
The bill came under fire from legislative Democrats who said the Republican majority was looking to lash out at protesters instead of taking steps to address systemic racism and police misconduct that have spurred widespread Black Lives Matter protests.
Rep. John Waldron, D-Tulsa, called the bill draconian and accused legislative Republicans of intentionally bringing the measure up for the vote around 12:30 a.m., after more than 14 hours of voting on legislation, in order to avoid public scrutiny.
Kevin McDugle, R-Broken Arrow, who presented the bill on the House floor, said he supports the rights of Oklahomans to protest peacefully, but riots are unacceptable.
"This bill simply says, 'please stay to the peaceful protests,'" he said. "Don't block roads. Don't impede on the freedoms of others."
In a heated floor debate, McDugle referenced an incident in Tulsa where a pickup pulling a horse trailer drove through a group of Black Lives Matter protesters demonstrating on a highway. Several protesters were seriously injured, including a man who was paralyzed from the waist down after falling from an overpass.
The driver acted out of fear, McDugle said.
Saying several protesters attacked the pickup in which a man was driving his children, the Tulsa County district attorney did not file charges against the driver.
"Maybe the way to prevent something like this from ever happening again is to make reforms on the broader systemic issue," Rep. Monroe Nichols said, alluding to criminal justice and police reforms to address systemic racism.
Nichols, D-Tulsa, who is Black, said he dreads having to tell his 12-year-old son that instead of addressing police reform, the Oklahoma House "made it so that folks who may advocate for people who look like him can be run over with immunity."
Republican legislators repeatedly emphasized they were trying to protect drivers from riots or violent protests. West praised Black Lives Matter protesters in Oklahoma City for largely demonstrating in a series of peaceful protests over the summer.
"A large part of our duty as legislators is to protect our citizens," he said. "This is something that gives them protection."
West said the bill is a well thought-out measure, and not a knee-jerk reaction to recent protests.
But House Democrats pointed to larger, more complicated, issues that have driven minorities to protest.
Naming victims of police violence in Oklahoma and across the country, Rep. Regina Goodwin, D-Tulsa, questioned if the Oklahoma Legislature cares about what she called, "the real issues" that led people of color to speak out.
"Something happened over the summer," she said, referencing racial justice protests that cropped up across the country. "If we were honest with ourselves, stuff didn't just happen over the summer. Stuff has been happening for centuries. Could we be reasonable? Could we try to get to the root cause of why people are in the streets in the first place?"
HB 1674, which now heads to the state Senate, would allow prosecutors to charge with a misdemeanor protesters who "unlawfully obstruct" streets or highways to a point that it hinders traffic. The legislation also outlines punishments and fines for organizations involved in the planning of a riot.
Tags
Who is online
81 visitors
Manslaughter - What Jesus would do in Oklahoma!
He would cry.
I think if there was ever going to be another "great flood", I would hope God would have the good sense to put the end of the hose on the Texas-Oklahoma border.
Good law. Dumb ass rioters and agitators shouldn't be blocking streets and highways.
Many BLM and Antifa are nothing more than domestic terrorists. Stupid stunts win stupid prizes
Did you feel that way about Tea Party Protesters?
Would it have been okay if a bunch of big rigs ran over insurgents at the Capitol on Jan 6th?
Of course not, to both statements. Did the Tea Party protesters riot and block traffic?
Only a few hundred out of thousands in attendance stormed the Capitol .
I would if I saw them blocking the road. But the Tea Party wasn’t exactly known for blocking roads. They usually got permits and met in a park somewhere.
A bunch of big rigs? When has a “bunch of big rigs” run anybody over?
But back to the Capitol, do the steps of the Capitol building function as a road? Do the words “false equivalency” mean anything to you?
The MO of the Protesters has been to block the car then pound on and damage the car while threating the occupants at which point the driver rightfully gets scared and drives through the protesters blocking the road. I don't care who it is and what they're protesting if they damage my car and/or threaten me I'll run their asses over and if they hang on I'll take them for a ride they'll never forget.
And all light up their TIKI torches before continuing on.
So if a bunch of people surrounded your car, beat on it, and threatened you and your family, not letting you proceed forward or backwards, what would you do?
Doesn't matter the "root cause". If you are riding peacefully down the road and get caught up in a riot, where idiots start beating on your car, blocking an exit and threatening you and your family, the action you will take is to barrel through those idiots to get away to "take care of your family".
Any other answer is only feelings at play.
Whatever I did I'd get it ALL on video. Including WHY I did it.
Exactly...and if the only way out to save you and your family's lives is to hit the gas, and anyone in the way, oh well, then that is what is to be done.
I agree. I value my hard earned property more than i value the life of some thug willing to damage or destroy it.
People should be able to flee or leave an area where a riot breaks out.
Thread deleted for TOS.
Thanks!
Pretty sure that I wouldn't drive anywhere near a riot in the first place.
If you were out driving somewhere, how would you know there was or wasn’t a crowd of people blocking the road around the next turn?
Do you have some sort of app that tells you where the nearest riot is?
Well, that bill sucks.
If a group of protestors sits down on a street or several, the police are going to have a hell of a time processing them all. As long as the protestors remain peaceful, there is not much harm that can befall them. The second that it goes from peaceful to violent, the protestors should pack up and go home or dissuade the perpetrators of the violence. This is the whole idea behind Civil Disobedience.
We have to beat them at their own game because the government, the legislators, the police, control the playing field. And we have to be a "We" and viewed as Good People, not definable as a "Them" or an "Other".
Well, many good people of all political persuasions view leftist rioters, agitators, and other malicious mischief makers as troublesome "Thems" and "Others"
The bulk of the BLM protests and demonstrations were peaceful. It is only through the media distortions of fact that the BLM movement was mislabeled. It is not a group of leftist rioters, agitators, and other malicious mischief makers, the fact that you and others think it is speaks to your incorrect impressions about the group itself.
I wonder what the Fox viewers perspective would have been if they had shown 9 clips of the peaceful protests for every 1 clip of the violence and looting. Considering 93% of the protests were peaceful that would have been pretty close to an actual accurate portrayal. But instead Fox chose to put on repeat cycle four or five clips from the violent protests that played nearly every half hour without ever showing a single clip of the peaceful protests. No wonder so many of their viewers have such a screwed up view of BLM and progressives.
Except those that weren't. The article indicated that it was specifically to protect those fleeing from a riot. I know you're an intelligent individual and you very likely don't need this, but I'll provide it for those that do not know the definition of a riot.
Among the "bulk of the BLM protests and demonstrations" that were peaceful as he mentioned referring to the 93% that had no violence or vandalism, zero "weren't" peaceful.
Oklahoma had one riot turn violent in Tulsa which is the one time they had a truck ram into protestors. Trying to legalize road rage as a legitimate response to protestors blocking your way is ridiculous. The law already says that one can use deadly force if they feel their lives were being threatened, they do not need another law sanctioning running over protestors.
Ha.. Sure and we should only have seen clips from all of the non-violent protests over the election results. Yet we only were shown clips from the one in Washington DC.
Make up your mind. You claim a trunk rammed into protestors, but note it was a riot. [deleted]
As I said, a truck rammed into protestors at the one protest that turned violent in Tulsa. It was one of the 7% of protests that did turn violent, not part of the "bulk of protests" that were peaceful.
" Two white men were seen throwing objects into the horse trailer on the 244 that resulted in the driver advancing through the crowded freeway and striking several of the protestors. One was hospitalized."
" The diverse group protesters were demonstrating peacefully at nightfall, but instigators who the protesters said were White threw objects at the police that resulted in TPD responding with pepper balls."
" The instigators who seemingly had their own agenda separate from Sunday’s peaceful rally also vandalized property just south of the Brookside business district ."
So it was NOT a peaceful protest but in fact a violent riot.
That it started peaceful is not the point of the legislation. In that situation any driver I'm sure would be held criminally liable. Once that "peaceful" protest turned violent, it was no longer a protest but a riot.
Look at it this way.
If a panhandler comes up to you asking for money, it's begging or panhandling. If that same panhandler then pulls a knife or gun on you demanding money, it has transitioned from a peaceful bum asking for money to a violent armed robbery. If you pull your own defensive weapon and shoot the peaceful panhandler, you will be arrested and charged. On the other hand, if you pull your own defensive weapon and shoot the armed robber, depending on the state you reside in, you might still be arrested or given a medal.
I agree, but in that case, we shouldn’t object to a common sense regulation like requiring people to get out of the street if they don’t have a permit to be there.
The various estimates of the percentage of non violent BLM Protests around 95% ish.
I don't think that people in general will pay the distinction that you drew above much attention. People apparently have bought the line that BLM=ANTIFA=Thugs=Bad. According to the polling numbers around 70% (don't quote me on that number) think badly of BLM as a movement.
Hey. Martha are we by them sumbitches yet?
Naw, Harold. I am afraid not.
What! Yor Fraid?. Hold On, Martha!. Might get Bumpy!
99% of BLM protests were two or three dozen high school students standing on a street corner in their home towns with flags, banners, and signs and yes they were mostly peaceful but they were unaffiliated with the actual BLM organization.
Of Course including anyone taking over any government building or office.
It is called civil disobedience.for a reason. A demonstration has to get covered, else it is just a bunch of people standing around. Since they do not arrest people for sitting at the local Starbucks (Umm, hopefully!) sit-ins are a reasonable alternative. A good place to have a sit in is somewhere where there are people to notice you.
Prove it.. And disprove that my contention that 95% or so of the BLM protests were non-violent.
I stand by my assertion. You can try to disprove it if you like. I did not say that all of the protests did not devolve into violence. And for each of those burning police cars there were many more peaceful protests. The media makes money off of conflict. The media is partially responsible for the false notion that the BLM movement is not peaceful. They did a shitty job of portraying what was really happening, especially on the right wing nut job sites who were purposely portraying the more violent side. Deal with it, because unless you can prove me wrong, then you are just spouting propaganda that has been fed to you.
Prove what ? That when people quote the statistic that most BLM protests were peaceful that the statistic includes every little BLM protest even if there were only ten people. It wouldn't be a very accurate statistic if it didn't include them all and the vast majority 99% were tiny protests put on by High School Students. I'm pretty sure every High School in my state had at least one, they were in the papers and on the local News. I would think there were tens of thousands of High School BLM protests across this country and I'd bet they even had some in Canada, I know they had some over in Europe and England. I doubt they included protests in foreign countries in the statistic but maybe.
Like I said:Prove it, or else it is just conjecture on your part.
Here is one that counts all the protests that are reported on.
Here is another that breaks down the numbers a bit differently
Here is a story from the Washington Post that goes into why non-violent protests are more likely to sway peoples opinions than violent ones. It has links in it to more studies on the the protests.
Your own Links Prove It so read them.
My links buttress my point. From one:
From another:
And the other:
So I guess it would be better to pull guns on protesters then. Here are just a few examples.
Ok. You've assembled a crowd of many supporters and other people who were attracted to this group of people assembling for whatever reason. You captivate the majority of your audience with well thought out, cogent and compelling commentary about whatever subject you are talking about. You have no control over actors who were either so energized by the rally or were even just watching the crowd. they are free to do what they will. In 95% of all the cases where there was a Black Lives Matter protest with chants and speakers and banners, all of the people went out to wherever they were from, went home peacefully, and made no violence. 95%.
Sometimes some of those people were, for whatever reason, violent. This includes when the President clears the square for a photo opp.
You cannot make people behave. You can request it. You can't make anyone do anything if they truly have there desire set on something else: Suggest stridently that they go home peacefully: If they don't want to, they are not going to. (Otherwise I would be making you chant for a guaranteed basic income! How's that workin' out?)
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. Prove it., or it is conjecture. Yes, violence occurred at some of the protests. It happens to most all protests given time. In no way do I proffer any excuse for the violence that did occur, but neither do I accept that the BLM people had total control over the crowds at their events. Some of the violence was caused by interlocuters, some was just assholes, some was people who were truly upset that the racial system in America kept hammering on them personally. And then there were some more asholes. Assholes ruin everybodies day. I don't see why we'er so worried about "R's" and "D's" when there are so many assholes out there. Deal with the assholes and the rest will get a whole lot easier.
Antifa still has not been shown to exist as a real group. So why don't you step up to the plate, get some real information, some real facts, organize them in an easy to understand manner and then deal with it.
Not sure why you’re STILL beating this dead horse that has nothing to do with the article but one thing is certain. Punk thugs in oklahoma better not get violent in the streets because they just might get their worthless ass run over.
The key words were unintentionally, flee, and riot. Running over peaceful protestors sitting in a street would not meet the definition of fleeing or unintentional or riot.
The FBI considers right wing fascist groups to be the biggest threats to democracy.
"The FBI considers right wing fascist groups to be the biggest threats to democracy."
A lot of them outed themselves on 1/6/21
Show me some proof that they exist as a group if you are so insistent that they do. I have seen people make claims that they are part of antifa, but I have seen no evidence of any large or organized group. So, basically, anyone can claim to be antifa and there are no standards other than the claim. That isn't a group.
If you can show evidence of organization and coordination on the part of antifa, holding a rally or having a membership drive or whatever any other group does, then I will say, yes, antifa exists as a group. If you really want to impress me, show some kind of national organizing activity. I haven't looked in awhile, maybe something is out there and I have not seen it. In which case, you would get to say that you proved a point on social media, and we all know that does not happen very often.
When we look for a dumbass comment, someone usually really steps up.
Great job...
Then it’s not fair to expect Trump to have control over the crowds at his events. The standard applies to everyone or it’s not a standard.
What does it mean to be “a real group?” Why should that matter? Even if we can say that, does that mean we shouldn’t care about the driving forces behind chaos, vandalism, assault, and harassment? And if it doesn’t mean that, then what is the value in even trying to make a distinction?
I never said any of that.
Antifa exists as an idea, and no one can pin down that idea except to say that it is anti fascist. Beyond that, there is little to make of the "group". It could be violent against fascist tendencies, or not. It could rely on doxing, or not. It is not a national group and it does not have any organizational goals, policies, or other things outside of the core ideology of being against fascism. There are local groups that utilize some of these strategies. I was expecting somebody to come back with at least that. But nobody did.
The fact that no one did is telling. It tells me that the persons establishing the bulk of the "right" on here cannot even take a softball statement like the one that I made and knock it out of the park with all kinds of links and buttressing statements. I was ready to acquiesce, because I thought that maybe we could start a conversation after that. But no. All that the right did is what the right (and the left, for that matter) do: They stand there and piss and moan that nobody is listening to them and everybody hates them and that the world would be a much better place if they just would listen to me. Or there is always the cutting comment that gets the most votes cause they "Gotcha!"
Well, I am sorry, but the world has been listening to you, all of you, right and left, and we still have a whole heap of problems because increasingly there is no tolerance given to points of view that do not adhere to whatever your dear leader of the moment is harping on about. That is fucking stupid, no matter who's toes you are sucking the grime out of.
Grow up and listen, actually listen to what someone else is saying. Then repeat the understanding of what they said back to them and ask if that was what they meant. That is discussion. What you do here is just blood sport for the politically minded.
Come off your high horse for a minute. I never said you said anything. I literally just asked you two questions. Rather just answer simple questions, you went on a rant and accused me of political bloodsport. That’s your problem, not mine. You interpreted the questions through your lens, not mine. Maybe try not assuming the worst in people for a change.
And you accuse me of being politically minded. Ironic.
I'm sorry. Did you think that I was meaning to offend just you?
That post was really intended for the public at large to upset about, not just you. But , Hey! Thanks for being at least a little concerned.
And here's the shit. There is very little of what passes for true discussion on here. There is a-lot-a-I-got-cha going on , but there is basically no true discussion, no amplification of premise backed by solid data and sound reasoning.
A real group is an organization that has some kind of organizational structure. A means of communication of goals or some such. Antifa has no structure. It exists in areas, but not as a cohesive national or international group. Antifa, if anything, is a disparate assemblage of groups with different aspirations and methods which do not commonly interact with each other.
Why should that matter? It matters because a certain political party began to push Antifa as being the source of the violence in any public display during the past four years.
Is it telling that you address the issues of violence while assuming that Antifa is behind them? Does this mean that you accept that Antifa is in fact responsible for them? I personally don't think this is so. I think that because they are of such an insubstantial nature, they were able to be scapegoated with no repercussions.
I agree Thomas. I sit and shake my head many times.
Considering we really are all here for different personal reasons of fulfillment, it's understandable that not everyone is here for in depth or even rational debates.
Additionally, factor in the anonymity, the personality differences and the variety of bianesses and issues of discussion, IMO: any site is fortunate to have much real honest in depth detailed, civil, conversation at all.
I think we are lucky as many people that come here are quite decent and all try somewhat to at least stay here.. although that in itself says something. But I think we all know how its just a little too easy to get hot in the moment. I include myself as well.
The thing with in-death debate is it takes time, thought, organization and being able to honestly listen to what the opposing side is presenting.
as well as doing your own research to make sure you are correct to begin with and to offer in backing up your side of an issue.
Many do not come here for that. Many never go anywhere for that. many do not want that.
I am not one of those I welcome true debate on issues and subjects that interest me and thankfully I'm not alone on here either and you know who you are. I do always try to treat everyone with respect no matter why they are here. (unless treated otherwise myself)
But I'm still learning who is who....lol
PS: IS this needed ? Maybe.. This includes people here on Both sides.
I'd feel remiss if I didn't give a thumbs up again to the owner operator of the site ...
Years ago, Reno had a riot that resulted in the main drag being shut prior to New Year's Eve. They also imposed a curfew and if you were on the street after midnite, you got arrested. The city set up a mobile booking unit and did it right there on the street. At least 250 were booked and given their court dates. I booked a room two blocks over and left the main casinos 15 mins before midnite and continued my partying and gambling away from the chaos.
Congratulations to the people of Oklahoma for having legislators standing up for your rights.
Dealing with rioters bent on doing harm to people and property gives the aggrieved or fearful individual the right to use whatever means is necessary and at hand to protect loved ones, self and property. If that means driving through and over them to secure your safety, so be it.
How many points do you get for running over a protester?
Protestor? Hell, you go to jail.
A rioter? You get a medal.
Is the difference sufficient?
How many points have you racked up? so far?
And how do you know if you didn't just run over a protestor fleeing the rioters??? How do you tell the difference while driving down the street? Only avoid people with MAGA hats on???
More than likely because someone "fleeing" isn't standing in front of or blocking your car/vehicle from moving?
SMH
To most liberals, riot equates peaceful protest.
Only if it is one of their leftist Brown Shirts doing the rioting.
If it is the far alt right rioting; then they need to be hunted and put down at all costs.
Seems it is far right wing Hitler youth that wear the brown shirts and carry torches.
That's his shtick. It's so tiresome.
Right on oklahoma! Children are taught not to play in the streets, maybe this will teach idiots not to protest in the streets.
I can't see this standing up to court challenge.
It's simply a variation of Stand Your Ground. The driver is permitted to use whatever force with whatever tool is available to ensure the safety of loved ones and self.
Consider the vehicle a three thousand pound protection device.
(smh) that isn't even close. I shouldn't have to explain the difference between unintentionally running over someone (what this bill states it's for) and intentionally running over someone (stand your ground).
Laws are already in place to cover a driver in the cases where their safety is shown to be in danger. I think I'll wait for the resulting law challenges to be completed before I take any hyper partisan's word for it.
NO
First: Get out of the road!
By all means, have a protest. Make your voice heard. Just get out of the road. People have to get to places. They have to pick up their kids. They have to get food or medicine. They have to get a family member to the hospital. They have to get to their jobs. They have to get to school.
You have a right to speech, but you don’t have a right to fuck with the safety and livelihood of other people’s lives. Only a selfish brat thinks he has a right to block the road.
Second: Enough people have been surrounded by mobs in their cars, and then pulled from them to be beaten that it’s totally reasonable a person would be afraid for their life in that situation. It would be irrational to assume that dozens or hundreds of angry people surrounding you have benign intentions for you.
Looks like they are taking a page from the ISIS playbook.
Looks like to me they are trying to make streets safe again.
You know--streets made for VEHICLES.
Pretest ALL you want---just don't block streets made for cars and trucks.
Stay on the sidewalks MEANT for pedestrians.
Read all the comments above and then tell me again that the gop is not basically a racist organization...
I know jbb - it's deplorable isn't it?
If a protest march is blocking your route you go around them or wait for them to pass. You do not plow into them. Unless you are in Oklahoma and the protesters are not white. If you are and they are not then you may feel free to hit the gas. Shaking My Head!